BEST Female Leaders for Civ VII?

[Caesar of Bread]

...Well, that's not confusing in the slightest. You'll find the same thing in the US, though, and probably anywhere that's been colonized. A good example is the Appalachian Mountains, named for the Apalachee people of Florida, who, obviously, did not live anywhere near the mountains.

Miami, Florida being named after the Miami community in the Great Lakes region is also one.

 

[Zaarin]

Miami, Florida being named after the Miami community in the Great Lakes region is also one.

That's a coincidence, actually. Miami is named after the extinct Mayaimi people.

 

[Patine]

By Sudan do you mean Nubia? Because I'd rather them keep that name for the region, whether it's the current Merotic Kingdom we have now, or the one of the Medieval Christian kingdoms etc.

Yes, there is still a Nubian ethnic group, to this day. Anwar al-Sadat, the Third President of Egypt, who made peace with Israel at Camp David in 1979, was a well-known member of that ethnic group.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

That's a coincidence, actually. Miami is named after the extinct Mayaimi people.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sudan (region) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ironically, the country of Sudan doesn’t include any part of the Sudan. Like how the country of Ghana has basically nothing to do with the empire of Ghana.

Well, I learned something new today.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Part of this map - Sudan/South Sudan

 

[queenpea]

Potentially controversial opinion, but I would prefer only to include female leaders if they were head of state/head of government/or equivalent.

I am a feminist, and while it is important to recognize the contributions of women leaders in history, it is also, in my view, important to recognize the role that sexism has played in denying women access to power.

Catherine de Medici was an interesting, playful choice for France in Civ VI, but France (a huge, historical fan of Salic law--they essentially invented it, if you trace the line to Clovis, which many French people do) has a long history of sexism in the political sphere, and men have always had a monopoly on state power. That is an unfortunate fact of history, and I think it is important not to sweep this completely under the rug.

What is exciting about playing a civilization like England (or Russia, etc.) is that you have multiple choices for female leaders (Victoria, Elizabeth I, etc.) who have sat on the throne, wielded actual political power, forged foreign.

In my opinion, this is what makes playing a game as a female leader all the more exciting.

Will this lead to fewer women leaders in the game? Yes, that is likely. However, I always think that Civ is strongest when it gets its history correct.

 

[Evie]

I profoundly disagree.

The game has always been about leaders, a much more vague and open-ended category, rather than formal rulers, so limiting selection to formal rulership is a change from the nature of the game. From the very first game, there have been leader(s) who were not head of state or government. Indeed, the mascot of the series never was a formal ruler (Gandhi).

The attempts to narrow down from leader to ruler are, to my mind, a fundamental simulationist misunderstanding about the nature of the game. Civ has never been about precise and accurate representation in all details of historical groups. It is a game of wild what ifs such as "what if Alexander and Abe Lincoln fought a world war against Genghis Khan and Gandhi,", "what id Samurai fought Hoplites" and so forth. The civilizations are not meant to be accurate depictions

As to France, regents still wielded formal power as effective head of government/states. They did not inherit or transfer the line of succession, but they ruled nonetheless. Erasing the many women who served as regents in French history (including CDM) is defacing French history and making Sallic law far, FAR worse than it actually was (it limited inheriting the crown, not wielding of state power). "Men have always had an absolute monopoly on state power" is a downright lie as far as French history is concerned.

Far from an accurate depiction of historical sexism, rejecting women leaders for France would be an accurate depiction of modern simplistic assumptions from popular pseudo-history and lack of nuance.

And that's the problem with "we need to represent historical sexism as it was". It often ends up with exaggeration or ignorance of the actual sexism's actual limitations, focusing only on superficial understanding of monarch lists while gleefully ignoring critical nuances in their hurry to present the past as a bad place.

 

[queenpea]

I profoundly disagree.

The game has always been about leaders, a much more vague and open-ended category, rather than formal rulers, so limiting selection to formal rulership is a change from the nature of the game. From the very first game, there have been leader(s) who were not head of state or government. Indeed, the mascot of the series never was a formal ruler (Gandhi).

The attempts to narrow down from leader to ruler are, to my mind, a fundamental simulationist misunderstanding about the nature of the game. Civ has never been about precise and accurate representation in all details of historical groups. It is a game of wild what ifs such as "what if Alexander and Abe Lincoln fought a world war against Genghis Khan and Gandhi,", "what id Samurai fought Hoplites" and so forth. The civilizations are not meant to be accurate depictions

As to France, regents still wielded formal power as effective head of government/states. They did not inherit or transfer the line of succession, but they ruled nonetheless. Erasing the many women who served as regents in French history (including CDM) is defacing French history and making Sallic law far, FAR worse than it actually was (it limited inheriting the crown, not wielding of state power). "Men have always had an absolute monopoly on state power" is a downright lie as far as French history is concerned.

Far from an accurate depiction of historical sexism, rejecting women leaders for France would be an accurate depiction of modern simplistic assumptions from popular pseudo-history and lack of nuance.

And that's the problem with "we need to represent historical sexism as it was". It often ends up with exaggeration or ignorance of the actual sexism's actual limitations, focusing only on superficial understanding of monarch lists while gleefully ignoring critical nuances in their hurry to present the past as a bad place.

Fair point on Gandhi, but CdM was never the spiritual leader of France as Gandhi was to India.

I'm happy to disagree on all the other points.

I would rather highlight and honor cultures that have uplifted women and trusted them with state power, rather than to pretend otherwise.

 

[Evie]

CDM need not be spiritual leader: she was regent and served as ruler during the minority of her children. She did wield state power.

You can "happily" disagree all you want, that's still verifiable fact you're disagreeing with. And it's still history you're criminally misrepresenting by claiming men had a monopoly on state power in France. They had a monolpoly on transmission of inheritance. Not on wielding of power.

 

[queenpea]

CDM need not be spiritual leader: she was regent and served as ruler during the minority of her children. She did wield state power.

You can "happily" disagree all you want, that's still verifiable fact you're disagreeing with. And it's still history you're criminally misrepresenting by claiming men had a monopoly on state power in France. They had a monolpoly on transmission of inheritance. Not on wielding of power.

In that light, why should we trust your claims about any other parts of history?

It's just my opinion and preference, as I have stated many times, that I would prefer the leaders of Civ VII to have actually held roles as head of state, or equivalent. I hold that CdM was a stretch for a ruler of France.

I understand that she was regent, several times, however, this is an exception and not the rule.

There is power is a regency, but it is a lesser power, because it is simply temporary. The role of a female regent in France is to wait for the "proper" male candidate to come of age, or to return from foreign travel, etc. This is a system intended to prevent the accumulation of political power in the hands of any woman.

There is no need to imply I know nothing about history, and I do not believe I misunderstand anything about the nature of Civ. That's why I'm happy to disagree with you, and there is no need to be aggressive.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's just my opinion and preference, as I have stated many times, that I would prefer the leaders of Civ VII to have actually held roles as head of state, or equivalent. I hold that CdM was a stretch for a ruler of France.

I understand that she was regent, several times, however, this is an exception and not the rule.

There is power is a regency, but it is a lesser power, because it is simply temporary. The role of a female regent in France is to wait for the "proper" male candidate to come of age, or to return from foreign travel, etc. This is a system intended to prevent the accumulation of political power in the hands of any woman.

There is no need to imply I know nothing about history, and I do not believe I misunderstand anything about the nature of Civ. That's why I'm happy to disagree with you, and there is no need to be aggressive.

It's understandable. No doubt she would be a better pick to lead France over her sons for that matter, but in the end, I agree that there are many other choices to lead France, with the majority being male. Of course, I think Catherine in the end makes more since then Eleanor leading France too. The most capable "spiritual" female leader for France is probably Jeanne D'Arc but even then she's not at the top of my list either.

If we want a spiritual female leader of a civ, I'd go with Eva Peron of Argentina.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Although I do not completely agree with @queenpea, I can understand where she(?)'s coming from. Although Civilization has always called its historical figures 'leaders' they have almost always (or as far as most players can remember) been rulers, just as the 'civilizations' portrayed have almost always been polities and not. It is therefore only natural to connect 'leaders' of 'civilizations' (which are almost always based on political states) to rulers who wielded a significant amount of political power.

 

[queenpea]

It's understandable. No doubt she would be a better pick to lead France over her sons for that matter, but in the end, I agree that there are many other choices to lead France, with the majority being male. Of course, I think Catherine in the end makes more since then Eleanor leading France too. The most capable "spiritual" female leader for France is probably Jeanne D'Arc but even then she's not at the top of my list either.

If we want a spiritual female leader of a civ, I'd go with Eva Peron of Argentina.

I used to love playing as Jeanne d'Arc back in the day. Civ 3 was wild, the costume changes from era to era were...hysterical.

I would love Argentina in Civ VII -- I am hoping they do introduce some new civilizations in the base game.

 

[Evie]

All rulership is temporary. Dictators and Monarchs until they die, democratic leaders until defeated in elections or term limits are reached, regents until he next ruler come of age. It is not less rulership for being temporary,

Limiting who "really counts" as a ruler to overplay how sexist the past was is not a way I can "agree to disagree" with of looking at history. I have strong negative feelings about Voltaire's misrepresentations of the past to make his political points, and my opinion is not better for more contemporary attempts to do the same. There was a lot of sexism, and it was bad, but the common portrayal of history tend to routinely exaggerate how bad in many ways (including erasing the actual power of women, and the women who wielded that power) while underplaying it in others.

We can do better than perpetuating these falsehoods, and we can do better than making a lot of countries seems worse than the bad they actually were to elevate a handful beyond the slightly less bad they actually were ("women can inherit but only if they have no brothers, is not actually much less sexist than "women can't inherit"). Much of England's streak of remarkable queens come down to luck and how many kings were unable to keep a licing son, not to England beinf particularly less sexist.

(Especially so when strict French Sallic law also had less to do with "ewww women" and more to do with Europe wide inheritance law - even in England - making it so anything a woman inherit would eventually go to their husband's family. France went strict sallix to prevent the French crown from going to another family that way; England did not and ultimately ended up with a Scottish dynasty on the throne as a result)l

Are there other choices I would like to see for France? Yes! Do I think that France should mostly have male leaders in the series because its kings were male? Yes! But it does not follow that France should never have a woman leader, or that it has no valid candidate for the role. CdM was a fine choice for one game. Others can take their turns in future games. Leader lists should not be limited to a handful of obvious candidates, but should mix the obvious with the more obscure.

But the pool of potential leaders should not be restricted to only rulers, let alone to rulers who weren't regents.

Apologies for that last line in the previous post. I should not have said that, and deleted it before your reply accordingly.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Are there other choices I would like to see for France? Yes! Do I think that France should mostly have male leaders in the series because its kings were male? Yes! But it does not follow that France should never have a woman leader, or that it has no valid candidate for the role. CdM was a fine choice for one game. Others can take their turns in future games. Leader lists should not be limited to a handful of obvious candidates, but should mix the obvious with the more obscure.

I admit that I grew to end up liking her in the end, and was glad that she at least appeared.

 

[pineappledan]

France having male leaders makes sense because of the history of the Salic law, and the incredible lengths the French monarchy went to at certain times just to make sure a woman wasn’t the head of state. Though I guess it’s the same as picking the 1 female leader for China over and over; they had a pretty strong male bias too.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

France having male leaders makes sense because of the history of the Salic law, and the incredible lengths the French monarchy went to at certain times just to make sure a woman wasn’t the head of state. Though I guess it’s the same as picking the 1 female leader for China over and over; they had a pretty strong male bias too.

Almost everyone did, it was extremely rare for a woman to be able to come to power in the same way a man could, whether it was due to laws or active interference in situations of succession.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Though I guess it’s the same as picking the 1 female leader for China over and over; they had a pretty strong male bias too.

Yeah, but sometimes that one female is worth it.

 

[queenpea]

I admit that I grew to end up liking her in the end, and was glad that she at least appeared.

She was more fun when she still had her little glass of wine...

Espionage-oriented France was fun. However, it didn't help that she was caricatured as a distrustful, plotting, gossiping, backstabbing murderess. Yes, sure, this is how she is represented in much of history, because: sexism. Half femme fatale, half Catholic zealot. Then, the Civ team throws her a bone, and in a very mea culpa way, we get the Good Time Girl Catherine persona.

To quote Sean Bean in another context: "...poison is a woman's weapon"